Sandhya Prasad vs Laljee Prasad

Dipak Saha Ray, J.—The present case arises out of an application u/s 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is directed against order dated 21.03.2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Hooghly, Sadar in M.C. Case No. 41 of 2006.

The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows:

The Wife/Petitioner herein as petitioner filed an application u/s 125 of the CPC against her husband/Opposite Party No. 1 herein for maintenance. The said application was registered as the M.C. Case No. 41 of 2006. At the time of adducing evidence Opposite Party in the said case filed some documents including Income Tax Return in "Saral Form" which were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit "B" series in spite of opposition on behalf of the petitioner/wife to the effect that the signatures on the Income Tax Returns filed by the Opposite Party/Husband were forged. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently, she filed an application praying for sending the said documents to the hand writing expert for examination of the signatures appearing on the said documents, but after hearing both sides the learned Magistrate rejected the said application on 21.03.2011.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 21.03.2011, the Wife/Petitioner herein has preferred the instant application.

The grievances of the petitioner as it appears from the instant application u/s 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are capsulated in a few sentences as follows:

The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the application of the petitioner dated 14.03.2011 in its proper perspective and approached the matter from a wrong angle and this has resulted in failure of justice.

After taking into consideration of all relevant facts and materials and giving due regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Husband /Opposite Party No. 1 herein, I think that the only point requiring adjudication is whether or not the impugned order dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court Hoogly Sadar is liable to be set aside.

At the time of hearing of this case none appears on behalf of the petitioner, but the learned advocate for the Opposite Party has appeared and argued on behalf of the Opposite Party/Husband. He has submitted that at the time of adducing evidence in M.C. No. 41 of 2011, he proved some documents including Income Tax Returns of his wife to establish that his wife had independent source of income and was able to maintain herself. The said documents including the Income Tax Returns were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit "B" series. Subsequently the situation was changed as the medicine business of his wife was closed and as such she had no income. It is also submitted that in such changed circumstances Opposite party no. 1 does not like to rely upon the said Income Tax Returns. It further appears from the submission of the learned advocate for the Opposite Party that the husband has already filed application supported by of an affidavit in connection with the said M. Case stating that during argument of the said Case the Opposite party/Husband will not make any submission in respect of Income Tax Returns which have already been admitted in evidence.

In the impugned Judgment it has been observed that "... In the W/o filed by O/P against petn. U/s 125 Cr.P.C. it was stated that petnr. has business of medicine and copy of I.T. Return of Petnr. filed along with the said W/o. In her counter affidavit to this W/o petnr. had said she started a medical shop out of her own stridhan property. But due to illness of her son she could not look after the same and gave authority to o/p to look after the said business. But her husband deprived her of income of that business and compelled her to sign upon some blank forms and papers. She again said "My husband prepared those tax papers according to his will and necessity those are signed in blank under threatening...."

Considering the above contention of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Petitioner/Wife with reference to the evidence of the Opposite Party/Husband (O.P.W. No. 1) the learned Trial Court has come to a finding that "Thus petn. has admitted tax returns are filed in her name for her medicine business and she signed the tax paper but they were blank at the time of signature. Therefore signatures on those tax papers are not denied. The period for which those tax returns were filed was the period when petnr. and O/P was living together. The petnr. has not denied filling of any tax return in her name."

From above fact and circumstances it appears that the learned Trial Court has rightly considered the counter affidavit of the petitioner's wife and the evidence of O.P.W. No. 1 in order to arrive at a conclusion. Since the petitioner wife has admitted that she signed on blank papers which were subsequently prepared by her husband as Income Tax Returns in respect of the income from her medicine business, there was absolutely no need to examine such signatures appearing on the Income Tax Returns by the expert to ascertain whether or not the same belong to the petitioner/wife.

In view of the matter the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or material irregularities.

Accordingly I find no merit in the present revisional application which must be dismissed.

So the instant revisional application fails.

CRR No. 1013 of 2011 is dismissed and in the nature and background of the case without cost.

The impugned order dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court Hoogly, Sadar in M.C case No. 41 of 2006 is hereby affirmed.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.